If the US has 95% of the worlds foreign soil bases, does that make the rest of the world isolationist?

Maybe as a rule the US should never have more foreign soil bases than the rest of the world combined. How does that sound?

Including Afghanistan and Iraq, Iraq having an absolutely whoppingly big base in particular, I bet the US is somewhere around the $120 billion a year range to keep them operating. 120 divided by 20= $6 billion. Making an annual saving of about $114 billion.

If there's one thing you can be sure of is that these bases aren't getting any cheaper. Over the next 10 years that's $1.14 trillion dollars saved not including the the amount it costs to pay the interest during that time.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

You can post all the dictionary definitions you want, and we can play semantics. I maintain that the US closing all of its 700 bases amounts to isolationism. Why? Because it does.

Actually, I am going to disagree here. It is not isolationism. I don't believe we should close all our bases around the world, but if we did it would not be a terrible thing either. And it would not be isolationism. It would be cutting down on US imperialism. ( A term I use for lack of a better word. )

NoahJ"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi

I just made the argument. I even used real words and their real meanings. You completely dismissed them with the wave of a hand. If this is what I'm to expect from others, then I don't expect much real thought to have been put to the question but rather answers from emotional irrationality.

Words have meanings. Emotion and irrationality and wishes and hopes don't change that.

Semantics. That is the game you're playing right now. I'm not playing.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

If the US has 95% of the worlds foreign soil bases, does that make the rest of the world isolationist?

Maybe as a rule the US should never have more foreign soil bases than the rest of the world combined. How does that sound?

Including Afghanistan and Iraq, Iraq having an absolutely whoppingly big base in particular, I bet the US is somewhere around the $120 billion a year range to keep them operating. 120 divided by 20= $6 billion. Making an annual saving of about $114 billion.

If there's one thing you can be sure of is that these bases aren't getting any cheaper. Over the next 10 years that's $1.14 trillion dollars saved not including the the amount it costs to pay the interest during that time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoahJ

Actually, I am going to disagree here. It is not isolationism. I don't believe we should close all our bases around the world, but if we did it would not be a terrible thing either. And it would not be isolationism. It would be cutting down on US imperialism. ( A term I use for lack of a better word. )

We weren't talking about closing some of them. We were talking about closing all 700 foreign bases. Going from 700 to 0 amounts to isolationism. It's hard to believe this is such a radical idea to you guys. I've got MJ posting dictionary definitions for Christ's sake. 700 bases hypothetically close, and were arguing whether it's isolationist policy or not. I mean...fuck.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.